ReviewBMC health services research2023
Multi-staged development and pilot testing of a self-assessment tool for organizational health literacy.
Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining, assessing, and implementing organizational health literacy: barriers, facilitators, and tools - a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Social disparities, navigational health literacy, and unmet needs in Germany: results of a population survey.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- [Organizational health literacy in German hospitals and nursing homes: state and perspectives].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- An Orthopedic Healthcare Facility Governance Assessed with a New Indicator System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Construction Level of Health Literate Health Organizations and Its Impact on Patients' Health Literacy: Based on Self-Determination Theory and Structural Equation Modeling.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil now a comprehensive, consensus-based tool that can be used by a variety of health care organizations for assessing their organizational health literacy (OHL) is not available. Therefore, we aimed to develop and test a literature- and consensus-based self-assessment tool.
methodsThe study is based on a scoping review that was previously published by the authors. For the development of the self-assessment tool, the criteria identified in the literature were synthesized with criteria gained through group discussions with representatives of different types of health care organizations (N = 27) all based in Hamburg (Germany). Consensus on the criteria was reached by conducting a Delphi process (N = 22). A review by the project's patient advisory council was included in the process. The self-assessment tool was converted into an online tool and refined by a pretest. Finally, the online survey was piloted (N = 53) and the reliability and item loadings for each scale were analyzed.
resultsIn total, 77 criteria (items) characterizing a health literate health care organization were developed and grouped into five main categories (scales): (1) "easy access and navigation", (2) "integration, prioritization, and dissemination of OHL", (3) "qualification, quality management, evaluation, and needs assessment", (4) "communication with target groups", and (5) "involvement and support of target groups". The results of the online survey showed that the tool is suitable for assessing an organization's status quo on OHL. The psychometric analysis showed good to excellent internal consistency. Item analyses of the developed self-assessment tool was satisfactory.
conclusionsWe were able to define a set of 77 items to characterize OHL, which were integrated into a new, comprehensive, and consensus-based self-assessment tool to identify areas for improvement. We found evidence that the self-assessment tool, based on the identified criteria, consists of the assumed five scales. Further research should analyze the validity of the self-assessment tool on a higher detail level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.